Intel's Sandy Bridge Processor Has a Kill Switch 399
An anonymous reader writes "Intel's new Sandy Bridge processors have a new feature that the chip giant is calling Anti-Theft 3.0. The processor can be disabled even if the computer has no Internet connection or isn't even turned on, over a 3G network. With Intel anti-theft technology built into Sandy Bridge, David Allen, director of distribution sales at Intel North America, said that users have the option to set up their processor so that if their computer is lost or stolen, it can be shut down remotely."
A global remote kill switch in our computers (Score:5, Insightful)
What could possibly go wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Somebody forgets about this feature and puts a processor in an airplane or some other type of mission-critical machine.
Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers (Score:5, Insightful)
I think airplane autopilots are still on 386 2005 (Score:5, Informative)
I think airplane autopilots are still on 386 or at least they where in 2005.
Re: (Score:3)
True. Think about how FEW processors are even dual-core outside of home PCs.
This will be like Vista.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
How on Earth could that be insightful? The chipset needs all the hardware for a 3G connection. They won't be putting any of that in an avionics package. As for Ethernet: I'd presume avionics uses TTEthernet or somesuch -- this requires, AFAIK, custom hardware to access the wire; a bog-standard MII exposed by Sandy Bridge won't cut it IIRC.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure the virus writers are rubbing their hands with glee waiting to get their hands on one of these chips.
Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure the virus writers are rubbing their hands with glee waiting to get their hands on one of these chips.
Actually, Kill-switch based malware is much less valuable in reality than other types of hacks. If this were a server processor, I could see the value in an enhanced remote server-kill. Because these are basic home-use processors though, remote kill viruses probably won't get much farther than proof-of-concept.
Botnets are much more lucrative in the malware world - processor uptime is much more valuable than processor downtime.
Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Kill-switch based malware is much less valuable in reality than other types of hacks.
Unless you are going after Iran or Wikileaks.
Re: (Score:3)
Or extorting the random gambling site.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, turning it off is very detectable. What's funny here is that Intel is telling everyone up front, that this CPU has a covert/side channel. That's what they're admitting. They're also telling everyone that the one thing it does, is turn it off. Both of these statements are plausible. Are both of these statements complete?
What else does this covert or side channel enable?
Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers (Score:5, Interesting)
Architecturally, I'm assuming that this builds on Intel's "Active Management" integrated service processor, which has been featured in mostly corporate models, with gradually increasing capabilities, for some years now.
Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers (Score:5, Informative)
The good news is that the story is either missing some important information or just plain wrong. It seems REALLY unlikely Intel would build a complete 3G radio and antenna into the CPU just for that.
It's plain wrong. Someone commented over at TFA:
Read the Intel White Paper at the above link: The chip can accept an encrypted SMS message IF the computer is equipped with a 3G card. The radio receiver is not in the chip itself, only the ability to accept and act on the encrypted SMS message of an external 3G card receives the message.
Re: (Score:3)
:)
Re: (Score:3)
you mean the spooks.
or, well, they were the ones who ASKED for this 'feature'.
Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers (Score:4, Insightful)
> our computers
As an AMD fanboy - say for yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
What could possibly go wrong.
Nothing ... because I'm sure that Intel can turn it back on remotely (for a price). Hmm, I wonder what they're charging to turn it off once it is reported stolen?
Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? The computer will be unusable (unless the thief wants to foot for a new CPU and motherboard) but the hard drive will still be there, full of your data! A few screws later and the drive will be hooked up to another computer, with all your info ready for the picking!
Re: (Score:3)
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
Your sig is remarkably apt for this story ...
Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know what Intel is putting into those chips, but I am highly doubtful it is the way the article states it.
Chip real estate is expensive. So Intel is going to put a complete 3G module on the CPU and use it only for this feature? And to top it off, it has some kinda of separate battery, cause you know, it works when the chip is off? Nonsense.
This is probably some feature that gets build into the AMT support of some chipsets, maybe on Laptops that have a 3G connection already.But the way they are describing this? I call BS on that.
Re: (Score:3)
No kidding. I also saw nothing like this listed in any development info. Given that this isn't some secret leak, but rather public knowledge, that tells me that we are missing something.
My bet is you are correct. They have new features in AMT that can work kinda like CompuTrace, but instead as a kill switch. So if the computer can be contacted, then there you go. Now in the event of a computer with 3G then maybe the new AMT system can maintain a listening state (like it does with LAN) and upon the right sig
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but 3G is running on top of GSM networks, this requires all sorts of annoying things, like a working subscription, a SIM card...
virus that tigger this sounds like a big DoS attac (Score:2)
virus that trigger this sounds like a big DoS attack just waiting to happen but who will want this when AMD will have a cheap cpu with better built in video.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry, just as the TPM ultimately trusts the user, rather than hiding its secrets even from its owner, I'm sure this system is 100% aligned with the owner's interests and has no other uses...
Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers (Score:5, Funny)
intel is giving us the possibility of killing [a PC] without even having to open the computer case
Sounds like Intel is trying to muscle in on Microsoft's turf.
amd will have one with decent integrated gpu that (Score:2)
amd will have one with decent integrated gpu that does not lock out 3rd party chipsets like intel does.
Re: (Score:2)
This was possible for a long time with phones yet it wasn't phone tracking which for the most part killed phone theft but remote kill switches.
I don't like the implications but it could cut down on theft a lot.
Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers (Score:5, Insightful)
Theft, shmeft! I want the thieves tracked down and caught. Killing the box just means you need to buy (from Intel?) another box. Great for Intel's sales, but no help to us!
And what does killing the CPU do to the data on the drives in the box? Methinks nothing. If it's not encrypted, they've got your data. Who cares about the box (hint: only Intel, as they can supply a replacement). This is a really dumb "solution" on Intel's part.
something missing (Score:3, Insightful)
is there an on switch?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:something missing (Score:5, Interesting)
this just allows them to put a big sticker on the laptop saying, "if you steal it, it wont work".
I can achieve this very thing by starting the CPU at 1 MHz clock rate, and until a certain 64-bit response is written into a register (calculated from a 64-bit challenge) the CPU will stay at 1 MHz forever. This will allow you to start the BIOS and enter the necessary code. And once the code is in the CPU switches to a normal clock.
You can have variations of this method too. For example, the computer powers up at its normal speed, but starts a timer, and if within 10 minutes (or something) the registers aren't programmed correctly then the CPU clock drops, making the computer useless.
And you can have many ways to "unlock" the CPU. You can have a fingerprint reader or your Windows password doing it for you. You can have a USB device plugged in that has a time-dependent unlock key. You can have a network protocol that checks that the computer is pinging from an approved IP range and then issues the permission to unlock. In all these cases there will be no simple unlock code stored anywhere; Windows password is not readable (only resettable), and external devices can calculate the response based on the challenge. The OS may have the algorithm (which is well known) but lacking the key it would be unable to convert the challenge into the correct response.
And, by the way, this invention cannot be patented now :-)
On-disk data (Score:5, Interesting)
Cue rampant predictions of abuse, but I wonder if it can be combined with an on-chip encryption key to make full-disk encryption more effective (if complete control is given to the user)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Intel had this functionality, as part of AT-D. Here's the Intel Technology Journal article (from 2008) describing their "DAR" (Data at Rest) protection technologies, which are fundamentally whole disk encryption with hardware protected keying:
http://www.intel.com/technology/itj/2008/v12i4/7-paper/6-support.htm
I recently went to find a chipset which implemented it, but a colleague in Intel said that some of their major ISV's - and I'm going to guess here that their recent acquisition was the primary complai
Remote Kill (Score:2)
Re:Remote Kill (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not paranoia! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
wut (Score:3)
Why does this have to be IN the processor? Intel needs to calm down with the paranoid shit and just make processors.
Re: (Score:3)
I know what I'm getting for christmas... (Score:2, Insightful)
An AMD proccesor.
Re: (Score:3)
Too early. Both AMD and Intel are at the end of their cycles this Christmas. Which is sad, of course, as people would be buying soon-to-be-obsolete computers without realizing that.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
All computers are obsolete.
Re: (Score:3)
The word everyone is looking for would be obsolescent. Just because a newer processor comes out, it doesn't mean that the old ones stop working en masse.
The statement isn't even true, however. Not as long as the older gear is still useful and the inconvenience of replacement outweighs the advantages.
As if...! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not you.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the dumbest idea coming out of Intel was to give exclusive licensing to Rambus for all future processors, no wait, it was the P-4, no, wait it was . . .
Never mind, you're right.
Re: (Score:3)
you kids...
The dumbest idea EVER from Intel was segmented memory space for 8086
THAT set computing back in the PC world YEARS
THAT is why G3/G4 (ok, the G4) processors run circles around the PC
THAT's why we were stuck with Windows blue screens until the 2000's
AND Intel processors still don't calculate sines/cosines properly.
All your data are belonging to thief! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:All your data are belonging to thief! (Score:4, Insightful)
How many laptop thieves give a crap about the information in the machine? In 99% of the cases all they want is to sell it, as quickly as possible.
Tracking? Remote data access? (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone else getting the vibe that since this thing will have a 3g connection on the backend, that it can be misused by others(governments) to track and remotely control/access your device. Geeeeeeeeee. This does not sound like a good idea... Well unless your the TSA.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
pretty much every phone has similar systems.
phones can be turned on remotely, have components turned on and even place a call at the behest of whoever has the right keys.
unless you physically take out the battery your phone could be transmitting everything you say already.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-6140191.html [cnet.com]
of course it will be misused eventually but such tech isn't new, it's been around for years.
Re:Tracking? Remote data access? (Score:4, Informative)
Please stop repeating this stupid myth - I mean, you could have at least read the article you have linked. While it was clearly written by technically uneducated journalist, you should have realized that the article discusses two, entirely different techniques:
1. The roving bug thing: in this case the cell phone's electronics is not used at all (with the probable exception of the battery): a conventional bug is simply hidden in the phone's housing.
2. The remotely activated microphone: it requires some application that runs in the background unnoticed (and, of course, it functions only if the phone is switched on), so it requires a smartphone or perhaps some wicked CMDA feature.
MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:3)
This is public knowledge since 2006:
The FBI appears to have begun using a novel form of electronic surveillance in criminal investigations: remotely activating a mobile phone's microphone and using it to eavesdrop on nearby conversations.
The technique is called a "roving bug," and was approved by top U.S. Department of Justice officials for use against members of a New York organized crime family who were wary of conventional surveillance techniques such as tailing a suspect or wiretapping him.
Nextel cell phones owned by two alleged mobsters, John Ardito and his attorney Peter Peluso, were used by the FBI to listen in on nearby conversations. The FBI views Ardito as one of the most powerful men in the Genovese family, a major part of the national Mafia.
http://news.com.com/FBI+taps+cell+phone+mic+as+eavesdropping+tool/2100-1029_3-6140191.html [com.com]
Cellular carriers will remotely update the firmware of a smartphone by government request in order to turn your apparently inactive phone into an active microphone.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, could take out the battery from our iPho... oh wait...
May go back to AMD... (Score:5, Insightful)
I was looking forward to this CPU. Now, I am really going to research this. This may flip me back to AMD. I didn't like when Intel did the tracking on the PIII and the sound of this makes me just as uncomfortable.
Great for governments (Score:5, Insightful)
Want to shut down the opposition's operations? Just disable their computers.
Do. Not. Want.
Viruses (Score:2)
Viruses will be written to detect anti-virus code coming in and trip the kill switch as punishment for trying to remove the virus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would you buy a machine with this in ? (Score:5, Insightful)
This to me says it will push foreign governments to non-intel machines. Can't risk the US government getting control of something like this.
Or any other power for that matter. No government or military would really want this on their systems. They might think they want it to "stop theft" but the consequences of someone else getting control are way to much.
Indeed, if they were really concerned (Score:3)
...about protecting the consumer from computer theft, they would target the HD and RAM (where data is held). "Security RAM" that instantly self-erases when it is disturbed could be a beneficial feature for some.
Instead, the only significant thing Intel's new feature does is give the US government a channel for denying powerful CPUs to its enemies during a conflict.
Leased computers (Score:2)
This seems likely to support leased computers--miss a payment, your processor gets switched off.
Just like buy-here/pay-here car "dealers", with a remote vehicle disabler. ...and as others have said, DO NOT WANT.
HD != CPU (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, not like you can read the information off the registers or anything.... or snoop L1/L2 cache if it's that tightly integrated....
What? No conspiracy theories? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. More than 30 comments already and no-one has brought up Microsoft killing the cpu if it thinks your copy of the OS is pirated. Must be a slow day. ;)
Re:What? No conspiracy theories? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, because only MS is evil enough to consider such a thing. Actually, it sounds like something more up Apple's alley. Regardless, that idea is absurd - any established company would be a stationary target for class action suites over something like this. They certainly aren't that stupid.
No, people should be far, far more concerned about viruses and malware. Especially considering how Anonymous and their ilk now think they have some sort of political agenda. The US government has done something Anonymous doesn't like? Let's brick every machine with a US IP address. Now that is something to be afraid of. Or those Chinese "patriotic hackers" that hacked their way into Google. Yeah, I'd be a bit concerned about that sort of thing.
Re:What? No conspiracy theories? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because only MS is evil enough to consider such a thing. Actually, it sounds like something more up Apple's alley.
Except Microsoft already has tried things like this. Do people forget these things so easily? Try changing the hardware in your computer, and you may need to call Microsoft to get your OS re-enabled.
As far as I can tell this is just a GPIO line that tells the processor to become disabled. Its existence doesn't matter at all; what matters is how the OEMs wire it.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because only MS is evil enough to consider such a thing. Actually, it sounds like something more up Apple's alley.
So, I'm not really a fanboy either way, but just to point out a fact:
Windows 7 requires that you enter a 20 digit alphanumeric key, then runs you through the whole WGA thing, which has in the past had false positives which (to give them credit) don't actually make your computer unusable, but do reduce the functionality.
To contrast, do you know what you have to do to validate an install of OS X (or before that, Finder)? Not a damn thing. Install it and go.
What could possibly go wrong... (Score:3)
So just buy one that can't be shut down. (Score:2)
I don't work for Intel, so I don't know exactly how they do this. But I don't think this is all the processor (it won't work without a 3G radio for one, so at least some of this capability rests in the mainboard), and how much is the firmware.
My guess is when you boot the machine, the processor runs the BIOS/EFI, and when initializing the 3G radio it sees if there is a flag. If so, the system shuts down. If it does this before even looking for an OS or starting up the display, you'd never know it even tr
Anti-theft... or anti-dissent? (Score:2)
Next up: anyone, inside of government or not, who accesses or downloads anything from WikiLeaks will have their computer remotely fried. Who needs a warrant to search and seize when ya got 3G?
Won't keep your data out of 'enemy' hands (Score:2)
Err, how about... (Score:2)
How about GPS so we could, y'know, get the computer back?
Intel new 3 step buisness plan (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Sell CPU.
2. Break it remotely.
3. Goto step 1.
Stock Market (Score:2)
I don't want to pay for "features" like this.
Who else can disable it? (Score:2)
Serious question, who else will have access to the datacenter that issues these kill commands?
I think we all know, everything else aside, some hacker out there would LOVE to claim credit for disabling thousands of computers, costing intel a fortune in replacement fees.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. So is Intel now in the business of deciding who gets shut off, like Amazon and DynDns? Or will they hand out kill switch codes to the top 250 computer manufacturers? Will they have a legal team on call 24/7 to ensure that kill switch requests meet even the minimum legal criteria? Will they argue on your behalf, or will they just go with whoever pays the most money? Will there be any prior notice and will you be able to appeal a kill switch order on your CPU? Will Intel do any better than YouTube at
Misplaced technology (Score:2)
What is needed is a remote means of wiping or at least making unusable data stored on hard drive or mass storage media. In the case of SDD, the technology should be obviously transferable. In the case of hard drives, perhaps an encryption key can be stored in a non-volatile RAM area and then erased on remote command to disable the data on the drive.
Disabling the processor will only hurt crack-heads. On the other hand, disabling or erasing data remotely will give businesses and government a chance to prev
How can they even pretend this is a positive? (Score:2)
There's no security benefit to the consumer, and the types of customers who'd really be interested in security features are business buyers - meaning the purchaser is going to be at least a marginally-IT-aware person who'll grok this (since business purchases aren't generally handled by the end user).
Re: (Score:2)
I'd hope that this was a spring board to more positive benefits for consumers of Intel products, especially businesses with big data centers.
It would be a good way to get past the financial crunch times, a derivative of the kill switch is a license switch. IE phoning to power up a few more processors in my grid, then phoning again power them down them in a few weeks.
Would really be easier to do the licensing than now. I'd have a bill for it and could make cases justify the IT costs.
A second case that is be
Faraday Cages, anyone? (Score:2)
Well, the article sucks... (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't permanently disable the processor, you can revive it if you know the password. To do a kill over 3G, you send an encrypted SMS, and the laptop obviously needs 3G capability and the OS needs to be running.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that there's not actually a remote kill switch that disables the processor, that it's a business feature that helps companies lock down stolen hardware, and that TFA and TFS got it completely and utterly wrong?
Yep. It's a normal day at Slashdot.
Why are people believing this? (Score:2)
There was another article today about a "honeypot new release" too see how foolishly the news media would react to a story linking cell towers to fertility. Now there is a idiotic story about CPU that can be shut down by a G3 cell network even though it isn't connected to the Internet. Why would supposedly technical people believe that a CPU could be made to self destruct even though it has no cell phone, let alone believe that Intel would do it. How do you think that magic signal is going to get inside a c
AMD now hiring 3G cellular hackers (Score:2)
In other news, AMD is now hiring thousands of hackers with 3G cellular experience. For what purpose, nobody knows.
How? (Score:2)
Spooky action at a distance? [wikipedia.org]
The real questions (Score:2)
new intel assembly op-code (Score:2)
MCF
or, Mail and Catch Fire. on smtp magic matches, the cpu will execute the HCF [wikipedia.org] instruction at elevated priority.
Anti-theft angle is just whitewashing (Score:3)
Re:And without owner's consent? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So would I. But I don't want somebody else necessarily to have that same bit of control. There's the rub, the devil in the details. How configurable will it be and who gets to configure it. Since everyone here at least has their tinfoil hat close by (perhaps covered by seasonally appropriate decorations) I don't think it's too far fetched to think that we're mostly worried about them.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm afraid I just don't agree.
The way I see it, ANY piece of hardware that has a built-in ability to receive some command that renders it completely non-functional is hardware with a DESIGN FLAW.
If it's in there someplace, you can be sure that eventually, the malware/spyware writers will devise some way to trigger it. (I can see the plan forming already. Software pops up and demands a random fee be paid online, or else it will kill your CPU.)
Most of us find the ability to remote kill a cellphone more acce
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)